Earlier this year I wrote about Florida’s new health initiative. They name the initiative “Healthy Florida First” however the URL is “exposing food toxins” which is suspicious. Their objectives are to “Promote a Clean, Safe and Transparent Food Industry” and to “Prioritize Nutrition as the Root Cause of Chronic Diseases”.
For anyone who actually works in food and nutrition fields, these objectives do not make sense. The term “clean” in reference to food is a popular consumer buzz word but does not have a scientific definition (and food ingredients are already well-regulated). The notion that “nutrition” is a “root cause” of disease is also a bit vague.
The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) published reports on three food categories – bread products, infant formula and candy. They claim they tested these foods for toxins, and published lists of foods and brands with numbers (reported in parts per billion, ppb) assigned to each category. They were not very transparent about the testing used, but it’s becoming more clear that the methodology used was questionable.
Alarmist Reporting
I’ve been writing about fear mongering within the food space for decades. Sometimes it’s subtle (a “free-from” label on packaging) and sometimes it’s more blatant. This is often part of the fear-mongering process. Perhaps at some point along the way it seemed profitable to some groups to scare consumers about the safety of our food supply.
A report like the one that FDOH published could give the illusion that this is the first time any of these foods were tested for heavy metals or that the organization is providing new information. In fact, the FDA already monitors the safety of the U.S. food supply, and routinely tests food for heavy metals like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.
Perhaps it was intentional to include candy in this FDOH report, since many would put candy into a “not healthy” category. Of course we don’t need to consume candy, but it is part of our food supply and it’s something that can bring a little joy to someone’s day. Would I agree that children are presented with too much candy in their day to day lives? Yes, I would. It’s at school, at after-school events, given out at parades and parties, sporting events, etc. But you shouldn’t feel fearful or guilty for enjoying a little bit of candy, or allowing your child to do so. Is your child’s health at risk if he eats a few pieces of candy? Probably not, but the FDOH report seems to be sending that message.
Risk VS Hazard
I’ve written about hazard and risk before, and I really hope that consumers are beginning to understand these basic toxicology principles. Identifying a hazard is not enough to determine if that hazard puts you at a “toxic” risk or has a negative impact. A hazard indicates potential harm. A risk is the probability the hazard will cause harm.
Think about potholes. A pothole is a hazard. The risk is the probability of the potential adverse effects of the pothole. The risk changes depending on whether you drive over it, around it, or whether it’s deep enough to cause any damage to your car, for instance.
The same could be said about candy. Eating a few pieces is not a risk. Eating a whole bag in one sitting has the potential to be. Exposure to a potential toxin does not mean the risk is high enough to cause any problems. It’s pretty bold for the FDOH to publish these lists of foods (infant formulas, breads, and candy) and alarm consumers with the language like “Exposing Food Toxins”. Especially when referring to something as simple as a loaf of bread a parent might use for their children’s lunchboxes.
Methodology Matters
According to the FDOH food samples were analyzed using an EPA method for testing for inorganic metals in soil. This is not the proper application of testing a food, and it matters. The method, called “EPA Method 6010D”, is an environmental sample method that identifies inorganic metals in an environmental matrix, like soil. Testing for a food matrix however uses a different method. Generally, when a sample is analyzed, multiple samples are taken to get a range of results that can be averaged.
Florida’s reporting is very confusing and inconsistent. It’s not clear whether the FDOH took multiple product samples or compared different product lot numbers to obtain their results. For the candy report, they use numbers expressed in parts per billion (ppb) but it’s not clear what the portion for that number is. Nor is it apparent how they determined the “safe consumption serving”. The way the infant formula information is presented is even more confusing and not useful for the average consumer. The actual FDA safety limits for infant formula are described as micrograms per day (for example, arsenic safety limits are set at 10 micrograms per day for infants). The FDOH lists residues in “parts per billion” for each category, so what does that mean?
But Why?
The final question is: Why is Florida even doing this testing? The FDA already runs tests for heavy metals in foods. In fact, the “Closer to Zero” program aims to ensure food safety of infant formulas. And what are the potential unplanned consequences of such a report? Will it scare parents away from certain infant formulas? Are they going to water them down or not feed their baby the nutrition he or she needs? Is that a “health first” plan?
There is always nuance in any science or art. However the United States has always had a strong agencies monitoring food and environmental safety. I am concerned that some of the cuts to these programs have cut back too much. I’m also concerned with consumer fear and distrust in the scientists who work for these types of agencies.
Time will tell whether these types of programs, that appear to be “helpful” on the surface, have any direct impact on the public at large. In my opinion, supporting larger public health initiatives would be more effective in supporting population health.
0 Comments